Talk:Rudeness

I

I improved this slightly. Of course it is sourceless and sometimes a bit POV. JFW | T@lk 17:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What else is considered rude?

I am thinking of adding to the list:

Asking someone their age
Asking someone what their salary is

ignoring a person, when spoken directly too  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.207.32.36 (talk) 14:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would that be unencyclopedic? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Canberra User (talk • contribs) 10:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry but I believe that would be extremely unencyclopedic as it really is not useful to any extent and would appear to be a long (and possibly endless) list of actions considered rude. Glassbreaker5791 16:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you joking?

Having disgusting yellow teeth, as displayed by Chordate and, most recently, Apollo. How is that rude for Gods sake?--Light current 01:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't rudeness vary by country?

Isn't the list of rudeness a little imprecise, in that what is considered rude varies by country? --Jonathan Drain 14:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Examples

I feel pretty ambivalent about the removal of all examples. On the one hand, the section attracts an enormous amount of vandalism and nonsense. On the other hand, some descriptions (I've been contemplating a slow migration from lists to paragraphs organized by general subject) might be helpful. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Rudeness varies greatly by region, and while slurping is considered rude in Europe it may be rude to not slurp in east Asia. If I were to add "not slurping", it would be unjustifiably deleted. Besides, I could make this list 20 pages long if I wanted to. So goodbye list, once again. 71.63.183.199 (talk) 07:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References section

The article currently uses two styles of citations (footnotes and Harvard style). Although I'm not happy about mixing the two, I have a strong feeling that the Harvard references will disappear once the long, highly technical section on linguistics studies is "fixed." (At the moment that section is flagged as a probable copyright violation.) --Koppas (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]